Defense attorneys Hubert Santos, left, and Jessica Santos talk to each other as their client, Michael Skakel, looks on at Skakel's habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Michael Skakel, right, listens to the testimony of his former defense attorney Mickey Sherman at Skakel's habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Michael Skakel, right, listens to the testimony of his former defense attorney Mickey Sherman at Skakel's habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Defense attorneys Hubert Santos, left, and Jessica Santos talk to each other as their client, Michael Skakel, looks on at Skakel's habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Michael Skakel, right, listens to the testimony of his former defense attorney Mickey Sherman at Skakel's habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Michael Skakel motions to friends and family prior to leaving the courtroom on the end of day nine of his habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

Michael Skakel motions to friends and family prior to leaving the courtroom on the end of day nine of his habeas corpus trial at State Superior Court in Vernon, Conn., on Friday, April 26, 2013.
Photo: Jason Rearick

VERNON -- The main scapegoat throughout the wrongful imprisonment trial of his former client Michael Skakel, celebrity lawyer Mickey Sherman exhibited an unflagging loyalty Friday to the Kennedy cousin convicted of murdering Martha Moxley.

"Mr. Skakel never admitted to me that he committed this crime and I still have that belief as well," Sherman testified in state Superior Court in Vernon.

Skakel, 52, who is serving 20 years to life in prison for the 1975 slaying of the Greenwich teenager, is seeking a new trial on the basis that Sherman did not represent his best interests when a jury convicted him in 2002.

"My allegiance was to Michael Skakel, only, and the rest of the family knew that," Sherman said.

The state rested its case Friday, calling Sherman as its final witness on what was originally scheduled to be the ninth and final day of the habeas corpus trial.

But a few loose ends need to be tied up, which will force both sides to return to court Tuesday.

Moxley's mother, Dorthy, 80, who has been staying in Vernon throughout the trial, said she was going home to Summit, N.J., and not returning.

"I'm pooped," Moxley said.

A psychological profile of an early suspect in Moxley's murder -- Ken Littleton, the live-in tutor of Skakel -- emerged Friday. The evidence was sealed during Skakel's criminal trial.

"I just seems obvious to me it can't be raised if it was given to the court in camera," Assistant State's Attorney Susann Gill said of the profile.

"That's not true," said Hubert Santos, who currently represents Skakel.

Both sides are entering murky waters from a legal standpoint because the scope of Skakel's habeas corpus case is generally confined to the competency of Sherman.

A major theme of the trial has been whether Sherman cut corners on his third party culpability defense, however, including investigating the theory that Littleton might have been linked to 13 other murders.

"To spend time, effort and, money being the last consideration, frankly to prove Ken Littleton was a serial killer when law enforcement had already gone down that road, I think, on my part, would have been presumptuous and wasteful," Sherman said.

Contrary to claims by Skakel, who broke his silence and testified Thursday, Sherman denied he photographed the judge and jurors with a camera pen during the criminal trial.

Santos inquired whether Sherman ever made tongue-in-cheek remarks that "I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on TV."

"Sounds like something I could have done," Sherman said.

Sherman was asked if he had written a book, "How Can You Defend Those People?"

"Yes," Sherman said, muttering, "Thank you for promoting it."

Thomas Bishop, the judge trial referee in the case, asked Sherman to repeat his answer, appearing less than amused. Sherman stuck to a simple yes.

Sherman disputed the characterization that he got caught up in the limelight of defending Skakel, saying he was already a commentator for what was then Court TV and several cable channels.

"It was not my life," Sherman said of his media appearances. "It was more like recreation."

Sherman asserted that his media connections helped Skakel.

"I also believe that's one of the reasons they hired me," he said.

The former head of the Connecticut Judicial Branch arm responsible for investigating complaints against lawyers also testified in Sherman's defense Friday, saying he is not convinced Skakel had a right to know that his lawyer owed the government back taxes at the time he entered into a fee agreement with Sherman.

In 2010, Sherman pleaded guilty to tax evasion and served a year and a day at a minimum security prison and halfway house.

Attorneys for the state called Mark Dubois, who served for 7 ½ years as the state's chief disciplinary counsel and teaches law at the University of Connecticut, to rebut claims that Sherman jeopardized Skakel's defense by failing to disclose $410,000 in pending liens placed on his property by the Internal Revenue Service and the state.

"I don't think so," Dubois said. "Retrospectively, could he or should he have said that to Mr. Skakel's lawyer? Maybe."

Santos responded that $450,000 Skakel paid Sherman at the time, one of several installments totaling $2.2 million, could have been seized by the government and been diverted from Skakel's defense.

"This was not an ordinary creditor that Mr. Sherman had. This was the IRS," Santos said.

Dubois testified that it was up to the family lawyer, a Skakel cousin who was negotiating fee arrangements with Sherman, to do his due diligence on the skeletons in Sherman's closet.

"What was he supposed to do, hire an investigator to investigate Mr. Sherman?" Santos said.

Dubois said that a simple LexisNexis search could have turned up information on Sherman's liens.

Earlier in the week, Ron Murphy, a professor of trial advocacy at the University of Connecticut, testified on behalf of Skakel that Sherman's silence on his back taxes constituted a conflict of interest.

Under cross-examination from Santos, Dubois acknowledged Murphy once represented him in litigation.

Close to exhausting all of his legal options, Skakel filed a writ of habeas corpus with the court, claiming he was deprived of a competent defense because of Sherman's obsession with his celebrity status and problems with the IRS.

By law, the judge must render a decision on Skakel's petition within 120 days of the filing of post-trial briefs by both sides. A deadline for filing briefs will be set Tuesday. There is a provision for an extension if both parties are in agreement.